Peachy try proven to be the correct decision

[M2D2]

I think in situations such as Peachey's, it should be benefit of the doubt to the defending team.

He took a swipe at the ball.

If it can't be determined that he definitely missed it (& in this case I don't think they could in reasonable time), No Try!

Same goes for bombs when a stack of hands go up for it. If you're contesting the ball & it's not conclusive that you didn't touch it....knock on,

This is stupid. Really, REALLY stupid.

 

[GongPanther]

So stupid. You can score a try with your torso yet can't knock it on??

Scoring with the torso is an utterly stupid rule.

IMO,tries should only be scored with the downward motion of a hand.No when a finger slides down the side of the ball.

 

[ed-grimley]

Peachy said he didn't touch the ball and that is good enough for me.
However karma is a bitch.

 

[Blues Riff]

Brisbane are going to rape the Panthers over the weekend.

Hey, that's a send -off in my book. Surely it goes beyond the bounds of niggling the opposition.

 

[TheFrog]

He took a swipe at the ball.

Maybe you might like to conduct a little experiment. Go outside to the nearest open space, and run 50 metres from a standing start. Try to stop your arms from moving whilst doing so.

You get my drift? Peachey was chasing a kick, ie running, from a near standing start. Just because his arms/hands were moving, does not necessarily mean he was playing at the ball. In any case, the rules only consider whether the ball was played at in determining a knock on if it was touched by the hand. Conclusive evidence has been provided that it wasn't. If the ball had touched the hands, the ref, who in this case appears to have been pretty much on the ball, would have called it as such.

I note "experts" (ie ex-players) with no connection to the losing side, on the idiot box still quibbling about this call, which was 100% correct under the rules of the game. One can only assume they were the holders of losing bets on this game, for experts of the game they surely aren't.

 

[Blues Riff]

The Ref knew what he saw. He went to the Bunker out of respect for Manly. Also , it was a low scoring game and there was fried chicken to sell.

 

[SBD82]

Hey, that's a send -off in my book. Surely it goes beyond the bounds of niggling the opposition.

Nah mate.

In the NRL benefit of the doubt goes to the "attacker".

 

[SBD82]

I can understand why this is causing such an issue. Technically by the rules of the game, peachey scored.

The issue I have with it is that he f**ked up and was rewarded. In the days pre-technology I have no doubt that try would have been denied. It just looks bad. (It's the feel, it's the vibe, it's Mabo). I can't see it being awarded at local footy level, and I can't see that there'd be any complaints.

I don't know what the answer is, but I can't help feeling that we have this technology that our rules weren't ready for. And now that it's here it's here to stay.

 

[Spade]

who gives a f**k about Manly, hope the merkins fold.

 

[Surely]

Nah mate.

In the NRL benefit of the doubt goes to the "attacker".

Unless there is doubt and it can go either way

 

[Blues Riff]

I can understand why this is causing such an issue. Technically by the rules of the game, peachey scored.

The issue I have with it is that he f**ked up and was rewarded. In the days pre-technology I have no doubt that try would have been denied. It just looks bad. (It's the feel, it's the vibe, it's Mabo). I can't see it being awarded at local footy level, and I can't see that there'd be any complaints.

I don't know what the answer is, but I can't help feeling that we have this technology that our rules weren't ready for. And now that it's here it's here to stay.

You can't go changing the rules on the run though, just because the try is judged too "arsey". Peach chased the ball and got lucky. Fair try. End of story.

 

[SBD82]

You can't go changing the rules on the run though, just because the try is judged too "arsey". Peach chased the ball and got lucky. Fair try. End of story.

Fair try. No doubt.

And I agree with you about changing the rules on the run. Ironically I think that's my criticism of the video ref. I think it was done poorly initially and now we are seeing a reactive response to that poor implementation.

I wish we had never introduced video technology to the game. On reflection, I was much happier when I felt like the refs dudded my team, but it was forgivable due to human error. Instead we have people arguing about lines on screens and time capture video angles.

But depressingly video is now a part of the game. And it's here to stay.

 

[Surely]

Fair try. No doubt.

And I agree with you about changing the rules on the run. Ironically I think that's my criticism of the video ref. I think it was done poorly initially and now we are seeing a reactive response to that poor implementation.

I wish we had never introduced video technology to the game. On reflection, I was much happier when I felt like the refs dudded my team, but it was forgivable due to human error. Instead we have people arguing about lines on screens and time capture video angles.

But depressingly video is now a part of the game. And it's here to stay.

They could make it a whole lot clearer by having a benefit of the doubt goes to attacking team ruling.

Not this make a call and the bunker has to find something to overturn it bs

 

[Perth Red]

Fair try. No doubt.

And I agree with you about changing the rules on the run. Ironically I think that's my criticism of the video ref. I think it was done poorly initially and now we are seeing a reactive response to that poor implementation.

I wish we had never introduced video technology to the game. On reflection, I was much happier when I felt like the refs dudded my team, but it was forgivable due to human error. Instead we have people arguing about lines on screens and time capture video angles.

But depressingly video is now a part of the game. And it's here to stay.

If I was NRL Id put it to the vote for coaches to decide if it stays or if we f**k it off. If coaches want to keep it they can shut up whinging about it, if they want it gone they can shut up whinging about the onfield refs calls. I dont see why we have to keep something most people seem to dislike just because it exists. I am sure KFC could sponsor some other aspect of the game. We could save about $4mill a year by not having it!

 

[Perth Red]

They could make it a whole lot clearer by having a benefit of the doubt goes to attacking team ruling.

Not this make a call and the bunker has to find something to overturn it bs

Everyone hated benefit of the doubt, hence why we went to refs call. It seems many have short memories!

 

[TheVelourFog]

Everyone hated benefit of the doubt, hence why we went to refs call. It seems many have short memories!

The answer lies somewhere in between i feel.

When the ref has to guess and says "Try", the whole "not enough evidence to overturn" is too restrictive, they should have some room to say "not enough evidence to support" as well.

There are certainly a lot more ways to not score a try than there are to score one.

 

[Perth Red]

The answer lies somewhere in between i feel.

When the ref has to guess and says "Try", the whole "not enough evidence to overturn" is too restrictive, they should have some room to say "not enough evidence to support" as well.

There are certainly a lot more ways to not score a try than there are to score one.

So who makes the decision and based on what if both the refs and video ref can't be sure? Maybe a people's vote?

The ref isn't guessing, he is making a call based on what 4 officials viewed. We went 85 years with this method being acceptable!

 

[Timmah]

We went 100+ years with concussed players playing on without adequate medical assessment, should we go back to those days too?

It's called evolution & change - all sports go through it.

 

[Doomednow]

More threads like this please.

 

[OldPanther]

Fair try. No doubt.

And I agree with you about changing the rules on the run. Ironically I think that's my criticism of the video ref. I think it

The answer lies somewhere in between i feel.

When the ref has to guess and says "Try", the whole "not enough evidence to overturn" is too restrictive, they should have some room to say "not enough evidence to support" as well.

There are certainly a lot more ways to not score a try than there are to score one.

If you start doing that you'll create worse problems. At the moment the responsibility is with the on field ref and so it should be. The only other option is to have benifit of the doubt with attack/defence always. You can't have everyone say "I don't know".